Too many more classes and they are just going to get stupid. Some kind of are already. A few more would be nice but too many more will be too much.

I agree that there there is a wide selection of classes now, at the absolute least I'd like them to round us out with another mage and healer. I very much enjoy new classes, as long as they're different than what has come before, and not too overly powerful. That being said, I don't mind that Heirs of the Blood doesn't have them. Speaking of the "when," the FFG list states that it's expected Q1. I'd guess February- waiting for "Guardians of Deephall" to emerge, presently.

Too many more classes and they are just going to get stupid. Some kind of are already. A few more would be nice but too many more will be too much.

I agree. I'd like to see another Mage and Healer just to even up all the archetypes, but beyond that I'd be perfectly happy if they just stopped adding new classes.

Not that I would actually expect that to happen. =P

I fully expect they will continue as they have been, and add a new class per archetype included in every box expansion that they release. (H&M packs aside, of course.)

The up side of this expansionist business model is that there's a constant stream of new material. The down side is that the next release always needs to look "better" than the last to draw people's interest, thus the issue of power creep and creative exhaustion leave their mark as the game gets bigger.

This is probably the biggest reason why I'm excited about Heirs of the Blood - it's just new quests, nothing else. Therefore it allows us to play new content without dealing with ever-cooler, ever-crazier items, etc. It's a good way to extend the game's content without power creep and make more use out of what's already there. If they make future campaign books that each use one expansion, they can re-use the material from that expansion in a similar manner, which would be awesome, IMHO.

They could also do something similar for POD "Rumour Packs." Just a deck of rumour cards, maybe 20 - 30. Divided into sets of 5 cards, plot-wise (3 Act I and 2 Act II per set.) Pick one or more of these sets to include in a major campaign or play each set by itself as a mini-campaign.

Then give us a boxed expansion with a larger map-board of Terrinoth (like the RB/RtL map) and use generic locations (ie: Forge, Whispering Woods, etc) instead of naming each one after a quest in a specific campaign. Then they could start publishing multiple campaigns that reference the same map. Plus a few of those POD rumour decks I suggested above, and we'd have a serious sandbox-style adventure system on our hands.

Could be even more epic than RtL was, and that's saying something. =)

The up side of this expansionist business model is that there's a constant stream of new material. The down side is that the next release always needs to look "better" than the last to draw people's interest, thus the issue of power creep and creative exhaustion leave their mark as the game gets bigger.

This is probably the biggest reason why I'm excited about Heirs of the Blood - it's just new quests, nothing else. Therefore it allows us to play new content without dealing with ever-cooler, ever-crazier items, etc. It's a good way to extend the game's content without power creep and make more use out of what's already there. If they make future campaign books that each use one expansion, they can re-use the material from that expansion in a similar manner, which would be awesome, IMHO.

I don't quite see the powercreep in this game (but I haven't seen and played everything) and I think that's not the only viable business model.

Most people rate the heroes and classes of the Base-game the highest (with a few exceptions). The knight, the runemaster, the desciple and the thief as well as Leoric, Syndrael, Avric and Jain are still considered the top heroes and classes in their corresponding archetype, not considering imbalanced heroes (Treasurehunter Logan, Eldar Mok, Nanok).

I think there is another big incentive to buy these expansions: variety and new balanced quests and campaigns. Monsters and Heroes don't always need to get stronger to garner excitement, if I get completely different settings to change things up with the grassland/dungeon type of theme from the base game. New campaigns that 1up mission structure and map complexity don't effect balance, but extremely effect the gameplay. I bought both big box expansions and the CK because of adding variety and getting better quests and I truly think this is a great way to sell expansions.

This means I'm very excited about this expansion as well, because if we get a new campaign at the design-level of Nerekhall or above I really don't care so much about the tiles they use, especially because I didn't play in the base-game's setting for a long time. However I really hope they release these books at least for the big box expansions (especially Nerekhall) to get more playtime out of those settings.

Steve-O, everything you just said sounds perfect.

The up side of this expansionist business model is that there's a constant stream of new material. The down side is that the next release always needs to look "better" than the last to draw people's interest, thus the issue of power creep and creative exhaustion leave their mark as the game gets bigger.

This is probably the biggest reason why I'm excited about Heirs of the Blood - it's just new quests, nothing else. Therefore it allows us to play new content without dealing with ever-cooler, ever-crazier items, etc. It's a good way to extend the game's content without power creep and make more use out of what's already there. If they make future campaign books that each use one expansion, they can re-use the material from that expansion in a similar manner, which would be awesome, IMHO.

I don't quite see the powercreep in this game (but I haven't seen and played everything) and I think that's not the only viable business model.

Most people rate the heroes and classes of the Base-game the highest (with a few exceptions). The knight, the runemaster, the desciple and the thief as well as Leoric, Syndrael, Avric and Jain are still considered the top heroes and classes in their corresponding archetype, not considering imbalanced heroes (Treasurehunter Logan, Eldar Mok, Nanok).

I think there is another big incentive to buy these expansions: variety and new balanced quests and campaigns. Monsters and Heroes don't always need to get stronger to garner excitement, if I get completely different settings to change things up with the grassland/dungeon type of theme from the base game. New campaigns that 1up mission structure and map complexity don't effect balance, but extremely effect the gameplay. I bought both big box expansions and the CK because of adding variety and getting better quests and I truly think this is a great way to sell expansions.

This means I'm very excited about this expansion as well, because if we get a new campaign at the design-level of Nerekhall or above I really don't care so much about the tiles they use, especially because I didn't play in the base-game's setting for a long time. However I really hope they release these books at least for the big box expansions (especially Nerekhall) to get more playtime out of those settings.

To be honest, the thief is pretty bad, but the Wildlander is amazing, and that's the core game. The runemaster and knight being fantastic I can get behind however, those classes kick ass. The Marshall is crazy good too, but not better than the Knight I think.

The Thief is bad, as well as the Shaman. Necro is ok, no more no less. Windlander is good, but not "that" good". Berserker is a bit weak.

Knight, Disciple and Runemaster are obviously pretty awesome.

To me we are far from having all the best/strong class/heroes in the core box.

As for the extension, I think Steve-O said almost everything

Too many more classes and they are just going to get stupid. Some kind of are already. A few more would be nice but too many more will be too much.

I agree. I'd like to see another Mage and Healer just to even up all the archetypes, but beyond that I'd be perfectly happy if they just stopped adding new classes.

Not that I would actually expect that to happen. =P

I fully expect they will continue as they have been, and add a new class per archetype included in every box expansion that they release. (H&M packs aside, of course.)

The up side of this expansionist business model is that there's a constant stream of new material. The down side is that the next release always needs to look "better" than the last to draw people's interest, thus the issue of power creep and creative exhaustion leave their mark as the game gets bigger.

This is probably the biggest reason why I'm excited about Heirs of the Blood - it's just new quests, nothing else. Therefore it allows us to play new content without dealing with ever-cooler, ever-crazier items, etc. It's a good way to extend the game's content without power creep and make more use out of what's already there. If they make future campaign books that each use one expansion, they can re-use the material from that expansion in a similar manner, which would be awesome, IMHO.

They could also do something similar for POD "Rumour Packs." Just a deck of rumour cards, maybe 20 - 30. Divided into sets of 5 cards, plot-wise (3 Act I and 2 Act II per set.) Pick one or more of these sets to include in a major campaign or play each set by itself as a mini-campaign.

Then give us a boxed expansion with a larger map-board of Terrinoth (like the RB/RtL map) and use generic locations (ie: Forge, Whispering Woods, etc) instead of naming each one after a quest in a specific campaign. Then they could start publishing multiple campaigns that reference the same map. Plus a few of those POD rumour decks I suggested above, and we'd have a serious sandbox-style adventure system on our hands.

Yeah it would just be nicer if they let us use the content from the new expansions as well. Quests designed for expansion monster types, allies, relics, tiles etc. they could make them optional paths - if you don't have the expansion you can't choose the quest i.e 6 ACT I quests, 4 for core, 1 for SoN, 1 for LoR or similiar/ As I have both the new content I want to use more than just open groups monsters, heroes , OL cards and Items.

I like the idea of extra rumour cards, but the POD version of the cards a physically different and easy to tell apart from the other cards. I don't like to sleeve those cards as they are rarely used. And POD sucks for international buyers like myself

The up side of this expansionist business model is that there's a constant stream of new material. The down side is that the next release always needs to look "better" than the last to draw people's interest, thus the issue of power creep and creative exhaustion leave their mark as the game gets bigger.

This is probably the biggest reason why I'm excited about Heirs of the Blood - it's just new quests, nothing else. Therefore it allows us to play new content without dealing with ever-cooler, ever-crazier items, etc. It's a good way to extend the game's content without power creep and make more use out of what's already there. If they make future campaign books that each use one expansion, they can re-use the material from that expansion in a similar manner, which would be awesome, IMHO.

I don't quite see the powercreep in this game (but I haven't seen and played everything) and I think that's not the only viable business model.

Most people rate the heroes and classes of the Base-game the highest (with a few exceptions). The knight, the runemaster, the desciple and the thief as well as Leoric, Syndrael, Avric and Jain are still considered the top heroes and classes in their corresponding archetype, not considering imbalanced heroes (Treasurehunter Logan, Eldar Mok, Nanok).

I think there is another big incentive to buy these expansions: variety and new balanced quests and campaigns. Monsters and Heroes don't always need to get stronger to garner excitement, if I get completely different settings to change things up with the grassland/dungeon type of theme from the base game. New campaigns that 1up mission structure and map complexity don't effect balance, but extremely effect the gameplay. I bought both big box expansions and the CK because of adding variety and getting better quests and I truly think this is a great way to sell expansions.

This means I'm very excited about this expansion as well, because if we get a new campaign at the design-level of Nerekhall or above I really don't care so much about the tiles they use, especially because I didn't play in the base-game's setting for a long time. However I really hope they release these books at least for the big box expansions (especially Nerekhall) to get more playtime out of those settings.

To be honest, the thief is pretty bad, but the Wildlander is amazing, and that's the core game. The runemaster and knight being fantastic I can get behind however, those classes kick ass. The Marshall is crazy good too, but not better than the Knight I think.

The Thief is bad, as well as the Shaman. Necro is ok, no more no less. Windlander is good, but not "that" good". Berserker is a bit weak.

Knight, Disciple and Runemaster are obviously pretty awesome.

To me we are far from having all the best/strong class/heroes in the core box.

As for the extension, I think Steve-O said almost everything

Ok I think it's fair to say I did exaggerat a bit, but still 2-3 out of 8 classes being considered as the best of their archetype with 1 or 2 pretty strong ones as well as 4 out of 8 top heroes really isn't a sign of powercreep. Powercreep would basically mean that the base game's heroes, classes and monsters should be completely irrelevant as of today.

Necro is the weakest of all classes, no doubt on it. For only one thing : it's a mage class; As a scout, it could be of some uses, with another weapon uses, but as a mage ...

Necro is the weakest of all classes, no doubt on it. For only one thing : it's a mage class; As a scout, it could be of some uses, with another weapon uses, but as a mage ...

I disagree. "Army of Death" on its own almost makes the class worth it.

Necromancer is a tad on the weak side, but it's overall decent because of the power of Army of Death. It's still outright better than the Hexer, and I think there are weaker classes in other archetypes (I'm looking at you berserker).

I must say that i really, really welcome this book.

What I find is missing from this game are campaigns. I have enough of minis and adventurers to go around.

At the moment i'm struggling to manage to paint the minis fast enough during the weeks so that we can play a new expansion during the weekend.

So it will be awesome to do a 32 scenario campaign and focus more on the game and the story and less on the minis and new characters/game components.

Let's face it, after you have played a scenario two times it has lost it's novelty and you are through with it. Without new content descent will just lie on the shelf gathering dust. At least for me.

That being said, it would be really nice to be able to use some of the map tiles from the other expansions...

When I find some free time when I'm not working on any of my 12 other projects (unlikely), I'll sit down and start work on designing my own campaign, story, mechanics, and all.

When I find some free time when I'm not working on any of my 12 other projects (unlikely), I'll sit down and start work on designing my own campaign, story, mechanics, and all.

I know the feeling.

I had a project in the back of my mind to convert RtL to 2E mechanics. I was going to use the old 1E quests for "core" quests and the smaller RtL dungeons for rumours/side quests. Something actually not too dissimilar to what I was describing a few posts back. It was going to be pretty epic in my mind. Alas, I could never find the time to actually sit down and do it.

I would have spent time on things like these if I hadn't had a million other games to play and a family to attend. Seriously, there are so many good games coming out these days that I can hardly keep up the pace. Descent is the only exception, as being a game we´ve always had reserved time for and I hope it is going to stay this way for a little longer. I´m not done with this game at all and I try to keep my players motivated too.

But honestly, designing own quests is cool and all, but for a playgroup like mine they will always have the initial feeling that whatever I come up with will be biased towards my own interests - balance and reward wise. It's totally normal to assume that I wouldn't design a quest which would be hard for me to win AND provide me crappy rewards even if I did. RPG aside, nobody's really keen on playing a custom quest with the guy designing it as the big evil guy, unless the quest is really well-designed - which unfortunately is the thing requiring the most time (not just putting out a map and some monsters, everybody can do that).

I will certainly do my own campaign, I'm already on it.

But, before, Descent need a "patch" to balance all stuff, because most of needs it.

Berserker, thief and necromancer are weak, bard and treasure hunter are OP. Many of the OL cards are really weak (word of pain), too much card can do nothing if heroes are lucky, some items are too strong, etc...

So, before finishing campaign, I'm going to finish this before.

A campaign book sounds like a really cool expansion.

The ability to use any appropriate monster group from the expansions and pick from any of the heroes, means it's not limited to the basic game alone. Sure it would be nice to use some of the other tiles but hopefully that will come in the future.

I'm really looking forward to this.

When I find some free time when I'm not working on any of my 12 other projects (unlikely), I'll sit down and start work on designing my own campaign, story, mechanics, and all.

I know the feeling.

I had a project in the back of my mind to convert RtL to 2E mechanics. I was going to use the old 1E quests for "core" quests and the smaller RtL dungeons for rumours/side quests. Something actually not too dissimilar to what I was describing a few posts back. It was going to be pretty epic in my mind. Alas, I could never find the time to actually sit down and do it.

Know what you mean. Had already written down the rules of the conversion from RTL to Descent 2nd edition. I think I even implemented the Shadow Rune in it as a quest. Like I said I wrote down some rules and made it also more a co-op thing instead of a human overlord. Althought it's not impossible to work around this, or keep 2 versions of it. Still struggling a bit with implementing all the main and side quests but had worked out all the settlements (gaining henchman, buying potions, weapons,...) and also giving every settlement an advantage but also a disadvantage. The party would move on the world map depending on the average movement points the hero party has. So 3 dwarves would be really slow but maybe very sturdy to defeat...Ok, as I got carried away with this, maybe I should dust up this project and share thoughts with you?

Nowaday, I'm kinda more thinking of converting the core campaign Shadow Rune into co-op/game night kit; for that I today openend a new topic for feedback. Mostly so far to know what encounters are very popular and so to melt them into the exploration phase.

I've played SW: Imperiam Assault durning the holiday season and must say that it is better, in my opinion, the Descent 2e. funny thing is that on BGG it says that it is reimplementing Descent 1e & 2e. I like Descent and must say it has a slightly different feeling then SW:IA but the second game is more balanced, faster and has a great campain mechanic.

But getting back to the topic I see Heirs of Blood as the first of a series of campain book for Descent. With it FFG can make campains and with H&M Collection give new monsters anf heroes. In both cases they will still introduce new material and keep the game alive. This way they can go without any big/small box expansions, still make money before the game comes to an end.

Don't get me wrong, becouse I like Descent and SW:IA, they both are great games but I feel that SW:IA is slightly better and the future belong to it.

I still will play Descent 2e and I'm waiting for those small, nice additions to it like H&MC and campain books.

cheers

I've played SW: Imperiam Assault durning the holiday season and must say that it is better, in my opinion, the Descent 2e. funny thing is that on BGG it says that it is reimplementing Descent 1e & 2e. I like Descent and must say it has a slightly different feeling then SW:IA but the second game is more balanced, faster and has a great campain mechanic.

But getting back to the topic I see Heirs of Blood as the first of a series of campain book for Descent. With it FFG can make campains and with H&M Collection give new monsters anf heroes. In both cases they will still introduce new material and keep the game alive. This way they can go without any big/small box expansions, still make money before the game comes to an end.

Don't get me wrong, becouse I like Descent and SW:IA, they both are great games but I feel that SW:IA is slightly better and the future belong to it.

I still will play Descent 2e and I'm waiting for those small, nice additions to it like H&MC and campain books.

cheers

Many people say SW:IA is the new better Descent, but I have a lot of problems with the game.

First and foremost I'm highly sceptical of the alternating turn order. Sure downtime goes down tromendously, but your ability to plan ahead instead of purly reacting to what's happening seems to be bound to the mechanism of "all heroes turn followed by all monsters turn". Of course detailed plans involving too many details (such as average damage dealt by attack) are bound to fail in Descent, however I still feel like good team coordination matters much more in Descent. Apart from that I find games with highly impactful turns much more exciting than a series of small less impactful turns, but for some people that's maybe less frustrating.

Then again I guess this streamlined turn-order makes it much easier to balance quests or at least make players feel like the quests are more balanced. I guess this is really funny, because last time I played Descent, I thought I was the OL and started to lay out a general strategy for the encounter and thinking "Wow, this seems kind of unwinnable". Then my friend wanted to switch roles and as soon as I began to see the encounter through the eyes of the heroes I thought again "Wow, this seems kind of unwinnable". In the end the quest was extremly close (stretching over more than 4 hours) and playing with 4 heroes I made a few mistakes in the end and a single OL card decided the game for the OL, but it was partly my fault, because I was dumb enough to get adjacent to 4 monsters in my turn although I even know this OL-card.

The other problem I have with SW:IA is that I want to play with painted miniatures, but see absolutely no joy in painting storm troopers or droids only made out of metal.

What really sounds interesting though is the campaign structure that seems to really tell a story and seeing how the Descent campaign book promises a cinematic expirience, we possibly get a similairly structured campaign for Descent.

The two problems i regularly see with full you go, i go turns like in descent, time consumption issues aside, are

1) That whoever has the first turn usually has a massive advantage in being able to alpha strike a target or secure an objective with no retaliation or response possible.

2) If a model succeeds unexpectedly well then all other models immediately have an unopposed activation of doing something with no risk.

For example my minion act 1 shadow dragon rolls the proverbial snake eyes on defense and dies in 1 hit to a perfect roll from Reynhart the worthy and his worn great sword. Suddenly the monster you are expecting to take 2-3 actions to kill (4+ if surges are not cropping up) is gone and you can only watch as the heroes steam roll out and start turning even your most simple plan into something you just cant recover.

Sometimes you get bad dice (yesterday i watched meric farrow take 3 turns to raise his first zombie in the cardinals plight, and the third effort required a re-roll from dark fortune) and you have to suck it up, random chance demands homage and the dice gods must be appeased but in descent because you cannot amend your plan on the fly it often feels like you cant recover sufficiently to get back in the game

Descent has issues with this which are alleviated in imperial assaults alternate activation interaction, its not inherently better but it does mean that one monstrous success by the heroes/overlord does not leave you in a position of immense frustration and a nigh on un-winable scenario while still leaving sufficient tactical flexibility for both sides (and possibly increasing them as it allows for reactive strategies, something that is usually a losing move in descent).

IMO its a move that would benefit the overlord massively

Both turn structures are perfectly valid and the descent one works perfectly ok for the means of game mechanics - Descent may prove faster playing with an alternate activation turn sequence but i feel it would wreck most quests and would make a lot of team synergies way less viable, if not outright useless while powering up some monsters massively (knock-back/throw suddenly; becomes stupid good - and they are all ready pretty **** good)

The two problems i regularly see with full you go, i go turns like in descent, time consumption issues aside, are

1) That whoever has the first turn usually has a massive advantage in being able to alpha strike a target or secure an objective with no retaliation or response possible.

2) If a model succeeds unexpectedly well then all other models immediately have an unopposed activation of doing something with no risk.

For example my minion act 1 shadow dragon rolls the proverbial snake eyes on defense and dies in 1 hit to a perfect roll from Reynhart the worthy and his worn great sword. Suddenly the monster you are expecting to take 2-3 actions to kill (4+ if surges are not cropping up) is gone and you can only watch as the heroes steam roll out and start turning even your most simple plan into something you just cant recover.

Sometimes you get bad dice (yesterday i watched meric farrow take 3 turns to raise his first zombie in the cardinals plight, and the third effort required a re-roll from dark fortune) and you have to suck it up, random chance demands homage and the dice gods must be appeased but in descent because you cannot amend your plan on the fly it often feels like you cant recover sufficiently to get back in the game

Descent has issues with this which are alleviated in imperial assaults alternate activation interaction, its not inherently better but it does mean that one monstrous success by the heroes/overlord does not leave you in a position of immense frustration and a nigh on un-winable scenario while still leaving sufficient tactical flexibility for both sides (and possibly increasing them as it allows for reactive strategies, something that is usually a losing move in descent).

IMO its a move that would benefit the overlord massively

Both turn structures are perfectly valid and the descent one works perfectly ok for the means of game mechanics - Descent may prove faster playing with an alternate activation turn sequence but i feel it would wreck most quests and would make a lot of team synergies way less viable, if not outright useless while powering up some monsters massively (knock-back/throw suddenly; becomes stupid good - and they are all ready pretty **** good)

Yeah both turn structures are perfectly viable that's why I think it's a matter of taste and I personally prefer the Descent like structure, because to me the gamestyle and especially combat feels more exciting if the heroes and the OL both can achieve tremendous victories in their turns. But I can see people enjoying the SW:IA gamestyle more, especially those that easily get demotivated by setbacks and fail to see that they themselves can turn around the game by clever moves and a little bit of luck with the dice. I don't think it's all luck though, but if you are strait unlucky... well that won't win you most games.

Basically I feel kind of different about your two problems.

1) The alpha strike is quite powerfull, but it's not a one sided story. First of all, the alpha strike effect is calculated into the encounter layout very well in every quest I played. Secondly this means the heroes are under some kind of preasure to execute a good alpha-strike or they start with a disadvantage. So they have to create a situation were they are in a good position on the map while not being too open to incoming attacks with the help of all their skills fatigue attacks and so on. But the OL knows that and so he can place his monsters in positions during set-up where they disrupt the enemies, while stil being so far away from them that they would have to at least move or waste a few fatigue to start to hit them. If the heroes execute a good alpha-strike I feel like the heroes earned their advantage, because most of the time tactical planning plays a bigger role than good dice roles, especially if the OL placed his monsters well.

2) I think that's kind of true for both games and the effect of the lucky power role is very dependent on the antagonist's choices. For example in IA If IP chooses to hide behind cover with his storm troopers, because his bigger unit is going to occupy the heroes for a few actions and then falls with one or two attacks you won't get much out of using your stormtroopers one by one if there is nothing in range. In Descent it's the same thing. If you set up your monsters nearby the heroes and don't cost them time by being hard to reach, you are set up for failure in most cases when lucky dice roles destroy your calculations.

I think most people that are put off by the Descent turn-dynamic, fail to see that they can easily turn around the odds in their turn, if executed very well, because not only can every model succeed unexpectedly well, but also unplanned achievements often lead to cocky half thought through overextension on the side of the winning party. I've seen countless times were the party that wined about "having lost already" after a few turns, turned the game around in the end or at least got out a very close and rewarding loss (with lots of loot).

I can perfectly see people enjoying the SW:IA turn structure more, if they don't appreciate being confronted with big setbacks they have a chance to overcome if they continue trying and don't throw the game.

That's why I think it's a matter of taste.

In the end I feel the Descent turn-structure fits perfectly this Lord of the Rings kind of gameplay theme of Descent: Being overwhelmed and find yourself in dire and nearly futile situations, you eventually overcome by heroic moves and a little bit of luck. Or in the case of the OL: Combine your evil spells with the abilities of your monsters to close off easy paths to victory and force the heroes to retreat.

Having this kind of gameplay I think Descent will profit immensly from a more interactive, cinematic story that this new expansion hopefully offers. If the story starts to play a bigger part in keeping both parties motivated to win, even when everything seems lost, the imo biggest problems with the Descent game dynamic will be minimized.

I'm playing Imperial Assault right now with my gaming group and I really like it so far. I'll write up a detailed review of what I like about it and what I don't soon.

I've begun playing Descent using the Line of Sight rules from Imperial Assault and its been going great so far. I have yet to run into any serious balance or mechanical issues.

I will say that it does strengthen the value of abilities like Fly, and weakens certain powers like Army of Death.

However, this rule set gives more tactical options for Overlord and Heroes, and also makes certain game tiles like 4A much more strategically interesting. (figures can't just move/shoot diagonally through the boulders, and they function MUCH more effectively as general cover from range attacks.)

So, the LOS rules in descent is stupid (IMO), its just sp easy to figure out if 2 guys have los to each other. Now, i have no clue on how it is in Imperial assault, but if it is as easy as in Descent and better, well, hit me i would like to know and implement to descent.

So my true point is, what is the LOS rules in imperial assault?